I think this may be Prof. Chomsky at his absolute best: thorough, clear, incisive, utterly honest - a wonderful exposition, and also with advice about effecting change. Superb.
Infinityinfinity has some older lectures with no video, alot more sourcing and depth. Prof.Chomsky is still fairly feisty but his younger lectures are much more passionate
He blew my mind when he mentioned the parallel between Americans grossly underestimating the number of casualties of the US invasion of Vietnam and the possibility of Germans grossly underestimating the number of casualties in the holocaust. Literally, BOOM!
declassified on the web are pretty easy to access, but there is mountains of the stuff. It can be mind numbing and impenetrable at first, but with Chomsky's help and a bit of perseverance it starts to become quite transparant as to what they are talking about.
In this movie those with power get to define the rules and what is right, wrong and moral. If we are indeed infinite beings simply experiencing this world through this skin suit then what’s it matter? It’s all just a temporary illusion.
Just in case you want to read the NYT article, here's the link: www.nytimes.com/2001/04/08/weekinreview/ideas-trends-transitional-justice-how-to-face-the-past-then-close-the-door.html
I have learning difficulties but I just adore all this juicy intellectual stuff! I am NOT a Poet! I find it difficult to read and write! I would love to fuck as many attractive women as possible but all I have managed to do up till now ( being 41 years old ) is masturbate on a quite regular basis. Friends of mine have said to me on Sunday the 7th of February, 2016, that "Everyone's different." I am a completely mentally fucked up person, with no life, who is a schizophrenic with OCD but I wish you all the possible happiness through this juicy, brainy stuff, Keith! With Best Wishes! Cheers - Mike.
give the power to him. or some people like him. there are some elders around who can fix the world, but we need to place them properly at the center of power. If I think about who rules the world right now I am being remembered at district 9
Avoid the religious language. There is no reason for it. I think the reality is that chomsky simply has a vast knowledge of the open information existing, and applies consistent moral values on it. He is not distracted by rhetoric or manipulation. He simply applies logic and consistent moral standards on the vast knowledge of the world today. .
For the curious, I think this is the NY Times article he mentions at the beginning of the talk, on dealing with the past. www.nytimes.com/2001/04/08/weekinreview/ideas-trends-transitional-justice-how-to-face-the-past-then-close-the-door.html In their defense, the article seems more interested in those nations recently emerging from "dictatorship" and/or "tyranny," and the rise of transitional justice studies within that context. Chomsky's point is still well taken, though.
My mother always told me: Forget what your left hand is doing, and your right. Think only about why the one is against the other. No one can live in a world with doubt about the other. Shake hands with yourself every day. Then say to yourself: Why would I give a tinker's snap for someone like me?
About all this commentary about first responders. First, there is no detracting from what the first responders did on September 11, 2001 and after. That was the greatest combined act and individual acts of heroism and bravery on this planet. I would not have had the guts to do what they did, but then again, my situation was very different from everybody else's. I had known in detail about those attacks since September 1997. The responders who are still living should be given all needed health care free of charge. Any government that does not provide that does not deserve to exist. There is no way I would have done what they did because I already knew what was going to happen. I am not sure I would have done it even if I had not known. The fact remains that when they say first responders they leave something out by omission. They were the first responders from the REACTIONARY FORCES. That is the part they conveniently leave out---reactionary forces. Those are the forces that respond after the catastrophes and calamities of civilization and life in general. Reaction after the event is necessary because many events cannot be known until they actually occur. Regardless of the mountains of corporate media and government propaganda and outright lies, the attacks of September 11 were in fact well known before they happened. The massive media campaigns asserting that nobody could have known those attacks were going to happen were deceptive, criminal and highly dishonest. It was a stone thrown into the teeth of every American who calls for the truth. Which is the more intelligent approach to such a catastrophe, preventing it from happening, or waiting for the attack to happen and responding to it? The answer to the question depends on your main interests. To the war industry it was a god-send in the economic sense. For those who were injured and who died and their friends and families it is sure they would be for prevention. I had known in detail about the attacks of September 11, 2001 since September 1997. I told for sure at least 100 people about it over four years, up to and through the night of September 10, 2001. That means people in law enforcement were given detailed information in plenty of time in 1997, 1998 and early 2001. They did not cooperate. They did not contact the FBI which the law required them to do. There is a very great deal more to it than is written here. From what I know, I responded first. My responses were denigrated and I was shunted to the side. The great lies were allowed to prevail. No matter how much the lies were hammered into your brains, no matter how potent and powerful your media manufactured group-think, the fact is I was the first responder.
Just googled 'no first use' (or wiki actually) and it said that the first use policy was revised in 2010 to NOT strike first on non-nuclear countries.. Anyone comment on this?
Obama has repeatedly said since 2010 that "all options are on the table" with regard to Iran for instance. That's the top level of government speaking. However congress resisted actions against Syria. It really depends on what kind of push the establishment put into the media on any particular foreign policy issue as to whether it is enacted. Remember that what is law makes little difference, it is what the mood of the ruling class is and whether they can sweep the public along with their latest venture.
@ cr0uchingtiger: The 2010 Nuclear Posture Review states that the US "will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation obligations." It also states, though, that a "credible nuclear deterrent" must be maintained, and therefore the remote possibility of the use of nuclear weapons still exists to protect "vital national interests," etc; otherwise, deterrence would really have no meaning. It further states that nuclear weapons may still play a role "in deterring a conventional or CBW attack": "The United States is therefore not prepared at the present time to adopt a universal policy that deterring nuclear attack is the sole purpose of nuclear weapons, but will work to establish conditions under which such a policy could be safely adopted." So, it still reserves the remote possibility of a nuclear first-strike capability, even if only on nuclear-armed states not a party to the NPT. www.defense.gov/npr/docs/2010%20Nuclear%20Posture%20Review%20Report.pdf Obama reiterated this policy in June 2013, and it seems to still be current policy.
gehrke111 It sounds like a bit of slippery wording to sustain the status quo, and perpetuate the billions spent on the 'credible deterrent'. Of course the only 'credible' deterrent meant in all this are the US and its allies
"Well, lord, I have some brothers who will likely end up here (Hades). Can you send somebody back from the dead to tell them. Surely they will listen." "They had Moses and the prophets. That is sufficient. If they end up where you are it's because they don't listen." On the one hand I'd like to call Prof. Chomsky a prophet. On the other hand, this stuff should be taught in middle school. Basics, basics, basics. Noam Chomsky isn't a genius, humanity is utterly foolish. Okay, he is bloody brilliant, but still!
Too bad Noam Chomsky is very old. Not that it's bad to be old person, but because it means he can not be with us but so much longer. There are not very many brilliant but dissident minds in the world.
jesus christ. he'd be so godlike if he wasn't so genuine and humble. he's a living saint. sorry for all the religious language, but i just can't help but think that noam chomsky has it right, through and through. thanks so much for uploading this
What is religious language? =P I think you are right. He is a godlike saint in terms of knowledge and intellectual honesty. If intellectual honesty can be a religion - why not? - then surely he is. If intellectual honesty is commitment to truthfinding, then it is my religion too.
I agree with you. However, be aware when you speak of poles shift. It was intensively researched and it seems like it would not be a problem for mankind.
Very interesting Noam. I did enjoy the talk. But can you remind us again what your views are on whether or not Milosevic committed genocide during the break-up of Yugoslavia?
I agree with so much of what Chomsky says except that I would argue that the Soviet Union and others like it were not capitalist but autocratic socialist systems that violated the values of democratic communism (ie industrial socialism won out over libertarian communism). Socialism in my definition merely means the government ownership of production but that is not synonymous with people's ownership, although you can argue it is pretty hard to protect people power without it. In the long run, neither orthodox forms of socialism and capitalism can sustain what Michael Parentti calls 'democracy of substance'
Nevin Blumer FYI, government ownership of production is called "state capitalism", e.g., the former Soviet Union. They were as socialist as the DPRK is democratic.
Pacopepe711 That is not a 'fact' but a preferred interpretation by some. To me, state capitalism is an oxymoron, since capitalism by nature is the private ownership of capital. I know its used often by anarchists to distinguish autocratic socialism from democratic socialism but to me it evades the reality that socialism can be autocratic and often is just as capitalism usually is.
+Deganawidah Ayenwatha Socialism is the opposite of autocracy and Capitalism is the opposite of the state controlling everything. Granted the definition of socialism, state-capitalism is different than capitalism, it's not a contradiction. State-capitalism means private ownership of the means of production with a state that intervenes in the economy for social purposes, to save it from crashes, to stimulate the economy and so on. A true capitalist, free market society is basically totalitarian and could never be implemented, it would self-destruct. Chomsky made these arguments and you can see them here on youtube if you want a broader explanation.
+Ricardo Ruiz Yes, I do agree economic and political systems are largely amalgamations - not just affiliations. Economic institutions are endogenous within a political system and reflect a continuous conflict of interests among various groups and individuals over the choice of economic institutions and the distribution of resources. I also agree with you that capitalism is not so much a system borne out of a laissez faire philosphy of Smith, Ricardo etc.., but more framed by the allocation of political power among elite groups, which long predated capitalism. Now capitalism and plutocracy are like out of control symbiotic viruses, both producing exclusionary institutions that pervade society. I do believe that were it not for a historical lack of participatory democracy in the industrialized world, capitalism would have disappeared. No argument there with you or Chomsky. I might be guilty of being overly obsessed with semantics, but I just see little value in the term 'state capitalism' instead of 'autocratic socialism' because by convention we distinguish economic systems not just by how resources are allocated, or how economic activity is directed, but also by WHO owns the factors of production. A State capitalist is who then? - the bureaucrat who controls but doesn't own, or the state that owns but doesn't control? State ownership and corporate ownership are very different in nature, even though I agree the outcomes for the less powerful are much the same. I am also wary of giving any economic system a democratic acclamation , given the propensity of every state, past and current, towards coercion and/or manipulation, despite aspirations to the contrary
Deganawidah Ayenwatha There is a little bit of confusion in your understanding of these terms. First of all, there can't be an autocratic socialist society any more than there can be a totalitarian democratic one. Those two have opposite meanings. Now, the comparison between that and state capitalism is also different than what you perceive it is. A state-capitalist society is neither controlled nor owned by the state. Just look at virtually the entire world and you'll see it. It has private ownership of production with massive state protection for the rich. Now, it isn't in the same level of state-capitalism of the USSR as that was a totalitarian society, we are a more or less democratic society, but even so today the state continues to play a major role in the economy as it has always done in the past. That includes huge protective barriers, protectionism, tax incentives, massive subsidies, bailouts that amount to 100% of the profit of the major financial institutions today and so on. Free market capitalism has been tried in the past and the powerful quickly called it off. The rich would never survive in a capitalist society without any statw protection and they know it.
Chomsky basically makes up these numbers, he says tens of thousands, millions? Wtf is that meen? He's not always wrong but all his numbers are just craaaaazzzy and have no basis in fact. I'd ask u to check them
What good is globalisation, if the people who actually work are more economically divided? Unequal treatment and suppressive laws (in the name of "global competition")account for the rest of their misery? Oh wait, the "Administrative" and "accounting branch" profit off it. 2 plus 2 equals still 4, but to some it is just "not enough", to others it is "too much".
I get fantastic medical care, because I'm rich and medical care is rationed by wealth. If you're rich, the system is working just right. The insurance companies, the health maintenance organizations, the pharmaceutical corporations are doing just great. Wealthy people are doing fine. If most of the population can't get decent medical care, that's not our problem. If health care costs are astronomical, too bad. NOAM CHOMSKY
Here is a far better question: Why do some people listen to Linguistics Professors who lack the guts to actually get involved in actual Policy-Making themselves, but merely criticize everyone ELSE from the sidelines, and with the great luxury of exploiting 20/20 Hindsight? smh
@@mck1972 - because someone like this man has to keep watch and point out all the "unimportant" little things that the daily grind deliberately blinds us 'bottom feeders' to.... Otherwise, we would never become aware of the egregious "quiet crimes" being committed against society in general.....
@@billkattkatt1693 , So then pls show me any example where information that Chomsky, ' uncovered ', has ever been accepted as evidence of an actual, ' crime ', in any legal proceeding?
@@mck1972 - there has not been any to my admittedly limited knowledge, save what Mr. Chomsky mentioned. I believe the reason(s) for that is evident if one cares to take a hard look at the 'Justice system' which he mentioned. There is no way the crimes, the REAL crimes, committed by our govt will EVER be punished because they run the courts, they appoint the judges, they dole out millions in 'foreign aid' ....our tax dollars by the way...so therefore they buy silence and ensure the 'correct' outcomes. Hence, the wrongs committed in Chile, Nicaragua, Panama, Cuba, Columbia, Guatemala, Ecuador, Haiti, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and places many Americans have never heard of, will NEVER see the light of day much more punished... Another side of the issue if I may. How often have you seen this man on CNN or Fox, or ABC, NBC, CBC etc etc? Have you come across his views anywhere in the mainstream? Have you ever wondered why this is? What do you think would happen if the mainstream bought & paid for media published a fraction of what this man is attempting to reveal to the sheeple of this country? Frankly, I am surprised he is still alive....these sociopaths, the real spectacular murderers, destroyed Gary Webb for exposing the CIA involvement in the importation of tons of cocaine into the US. Not even a whisper from John Q. Sheeple....they all bought the story that a depressed journalist shot himself in the head. TWICE! Why? They didn't know, but it gets worse....they don't care...not their problem... too busy keeping up with the Kardashians, watching the NFL, working to make ends meet. Shame!
@@billkattkatt1693 Well some ppl might say that the reason Chomsky is not featured more in the mainstream media, is that he merely indulges in paranoid conspiracy theories, that have little if any basis in fact whatsoever! Instead, he merely cherry-picks his info, to fit his own preconceived conclusions. And the WORSE our own government has (supposedly) behaved, then the WORSE it makes Chomsky himself look, for NEVER even trying to seek a policy making position himself, and show he can do better! So IF the, ' powers that be ', really are out to get Chomsky, then they look amazingly incompetent for allowing him to make it to age 90, no???
1 hour in and im not really getting what his message is here, just seems like a shambles jumping from topic to topic. He has jumped from South America, to nukes, to economics just rattling off trivia facts. Does he tie this all up to a message at all? I guess what I am asking is WHAT'S YOUR POINT DUDE!!!
The point is that the structure of the institutions ie the social system, is destructive to the point of becoming dangerous. And that it is up to the people to combine into movements that can modify the policies of said institutions, if not modify or completely reorganize the institutions themselves. Hence the title, Institutions vs. People.
He's well-educated in certain areas, but I notice he has a lot to say about his opinions on economics despite his complete lack of knowledge and understanding about econonomics
+iamtheone whoiamlight Studying international relations and political science is frankly 90% about economics. It's what I studied and I can vouch for that. You don't learn micro economic skills like accounting but you probably learn more about macro economy than a business major. Besides, if you have any argument against any of his statements, by all means, please put it forward. You may be right, who knows.
He not only knows the relations of power in the world, which involve economic and social aspects, he's also constantly citing proeminent and even mainstream economists to back his arguments with evidence, and when he guesses something he says it, straight out. He is a lot more of an intellectual than many others who pretend to be.
He is more knowledgeable about economics than the supply side/shareholder value , profits over America fascist Powell memo 1%er socialism and corporate welfare ideology economic theories that corporations and the megawealthy have taken over Americas, government, buisness schools universities with, and re engineering American society with the a culture of greed that had destroyed our government and democracy. .
to be frank, you don't need to have learnt economics to see its effects all over the world. but you are correct, the way Chomsky usually works, as it seems, is to simply rely on other acknowledged experts, so his "opinion" on economics is not really an opinion, but, if you'd ask him, he would probably cite others who are unquestioned experts in the field.
![Jack Harlow - Hello Miss Johnson [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Q86_nlRoIGw/mqdefault.jpg)
18 years later, and it's like he had a crystal ball. Of course, it's just him paying attention and having basic decency.
I think this may be Prof. Chomsky at his absolute best: thorough, clear, incisive, utterly honest - a wonderful exposition, and also with advice about effecting change. Superb.
Infinityinfinity has some older lectures with no video, alot more sourcing and depth. Prof.Chomsky is still fairly feisty but his younger lectures are much more passionate
I hate to dig at such a praising comment *but*...this is basically his *norm* he just operates like this it is something else!
This man has intelligence with a conscience.
I just realized what the anarchist version of _"An apple day..."_ would be:
"Intelligence with conscience keeps away the nonsense".
I just realised what a comment with no understand of anarchy would look like.
one of the best of his lectures! they all are the best, but this was extremely awesome!
He blew my mind when he mentioned the parallel between Americans grossly underestimating the number of casualties of the US invasion of Vietnam and the possibility of Germans grossly underestimating the number of casualties in the holocaust.
Literally, BOOM!
I'm from Brazil and we have the same western mindset as in the US and it also blew my mind.
declassified on the web are pretty easy to access, but there is mountains of the stuff. It can be mind numbing and impenetrable at first, but with Chomsky's help and a bit of perseverance it starts to become quite transparant as to what they are talking about.
In this movie those with power get to define the rules and what is right, wrong and moral. If we are indeed infinite beings simply experiencing this world through this skin suit then what’s it matter? It’s all just a temporary illusion.
"i just can't help but think that noam chomsky has it right"
get some of his books and follow up his citations, then you'll know, that's what I did
1:40:00 - 1:50:00
my favorite...You learn much more from these 10 minutes than 4 years economic school.
fffjkjk jkjkjk the economics school are not here To teach you true thing but thnigs To maintain the system and make of you a slave
@@YoussefbenMOROCCO right on.
economics is the study of rhetorically justifying state capitalism.
not all thankfully @@curiouskarl5485What's really ripping us all off ... ruclips.net/video/6P97r9Ci5Kg/видео.html
Just in case you want to read the NYT article, here's the link:
www.nytimes.com/2001/04/08/weekinreview/ideas-trends-transitional-justice-how-to-face-the-past-then-close-the-door.html
What a man! What a Mind!
I have learning difficulties but I just adore all this juicy intellectual stuff! I am NOT a Poet! I find it difficult to read and write! I would love to fuck as many attractive women as possible but all I have managed to do up till now ( being 41 years old ) is masturbate on a quite regular basis. Friends of mine have said to me on Sunday the 7th of February, 2016, that "Everyone's different." I am a completely mentally fucked up person, with no life, who is a schizophrenic with OCD but I wish you all the possible happiness through this juicy, brainy stuff, Keith! With Best Wishes! Cheers - Mike.
Hey thanks Mike. You're not that different from the rest of us if at all. Cheers.
You're honor, I'm deeply impressed by your lectures, their " GREAT ".
give the power to him. or some people like him.
there are some elders around who can fix the world, but we need to place them properly at the center of power. If I think about who rules the world right now I am being remembered at district 9
Institution versus people This Is War
Avoid the religious language. There is no reason for it. I think the reality is that chomsky simply has a vast knowledge of the open information existing, and applies consistent moral values on it. He is not distracted by rhetoric or manipulation. He simply applies logic and consistent moral standards on the vast knowledge of the world today.
.
thank you for uploading this
*sigh*
Why do I insist on reaffirming the depressing reality that I live in a militaristic, industrial, humanity-consuming monster?
Because you can't believe even your parents lied to you.
Truth cannot be evaded.
On the money. Because it’s reassuring hearing a wise old man spell out clearly the sneaking truth you knew all along.
Nothing will matter in 100 million years. Do what you can to innovate and create for what is next in space and time
i can't read them all fast enough, haha. so far, so good
I will recommend this video to boy/girl Republican maybe maybe he /she will learn something I hope so even if it takes a MILLION YEARS
For the curious, I think this is the NY Times article he mentions at the beginning of the talk, on dealing with the past. www.nytimes.com/2001/04/08/weekinreview/ideas-trends-transitional-justice-how-to-face-the-past-then-close-the-door.html
In their defense, the article seems more interested in those nations recently emerging from "dictatorship" and/or "tyranny," and the rise of transitional justice studies within that context. Chomsky's point is still well taken, though.
Great information !!!
Does anyone know where I can find a recording of the talk he did in Australia about the East Timor conflict that is mentioned around the 1:50:00 mark?
go on Noam!
My mother always told me: Forget what your left hand is doing, and your right. Think only about why the one is against the other. No one can live in a world with doubt about the other. Shake hands with yourself every day. Then say to yourself: Why would I give a tinker's snap for someone like me?
My mother and father told me nothing of value. You have no idea how lucky you are.
About all this commentary about first responders. First, there is no detracting from what the first responders did on September 11, 2001 and after. That was the greatest combined act and individual acts of heroism and bravery on this planet. I would not have had the guts to do what they did, but then again, my situation was very different from everybody else's. I had known in detail about those attacks since September 1997. The responders who are still living should be given all needed health care free of charge. Any government that does not provide that does not deserve to exist. There is no way I would have done what they did because I already knew what was going to happen. I am not sure I would have done it even if I had not known.
The fact remains that when they say first responders they leave something out by omission. They were the first responders from the REACTIONARY FORCES. That is the part they conveniently leave out---reactionary forces. Those are the forces that respond after the catastrophes and calamities of civilization and life in general. Reaction after the event is necessary because many events cannot be known until they actually occur. Regardless of the mountains of corporate media and government propaganda and outright lies, the attacks of September 11 were in fact well known before they happened. The massive media campaigns asserting that nobody could have known those attacks were going to happen were deceptive, criminal and highly dishonest. It was a stone thrown into the teeth of every American who calls for the truth.
Which is the more intelligent approach to such a catastrophe, preventing it from happening, or waiting for the attack to happen and responding to it? The answer to the question depends on your main interests. To the war industry it was a god-send in the economic sense. For those who were injured and who died and their friends and families it is sure they would be for prevention.
I had known in detail about the attacks of September 11, 2001 since September 1997. I told for sure at least 100 people about it over four years, up to and through the night of September 10, 2001. That means people in law enforcement were given detailed information in plenty of time in 1997, 1998 and early 2001. They did not cooperate. They did not contact the FBI which the law required them to do. There is a very great deal more to it than is written here. From what I know, I responded first. My responses were denigrated and I was shunted to the side. The great lies were allowed to prevail. No matter how much the lies were hammered into your brains, no matter how potent and powerful your media manufactured group-think, the fact is I was the first responder.
Just googled 'no first use' (or wiki actually) and it said that the first use policy was revised in 2010 to NOT strike first on non-nuclear countries.. Anyone comment on this?
Obama has repeatedly said since 2010 that "all options are on the table" with regard to Iran for instance. That's the top level of government speaking. However congress resisted actions against Syria. It really depends on what kind of push the establishment put into the media on any particular foreign policy issue as to whether it is enacted. Remember that what is law makes little difference, it is what the mood of the ruling class is and whether they can sweep the public along with their latest venture.
@ cr0uchingtiger:
The 2010 Nuclear Posture Review states that the US "will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation obligations." It also states, though, that a "credible nuclear deterrent" must be maintained, and therefore the remote possibility of the use of nuclear weapons still exists to protect "vital national interests," etc; otherwise, deterrence would really have no meaning.
It further states that nuclear weapons may still play a role "in deterring a conventional or CBW attack": "The United States is therefore not prepared at the present time to adopt a universal policy that deterring nuclear attack is the sole purpose of nuclear weapons, but will work to establish conditions under which such a policy could be safely adopted." So, it still reserves the remote possibility of a nuclear first-strike capability, even if only on nuclear-armed states not a party to the NPT.
www.defense.gov/npr/docs/2010%20Nuclear%20Posture%20Review%20Report.pdf
Obama reiterated this policy in June 2013, and it seems to still be current policy.
gehrke111 It sounds like a bit of slippery wording to sustain the status quo, and perpetuate the billions spent on the 'credible deterrent'. Of course the only 'credible' deterrent meant in all this are the US and its allies
Noam!!!!
"Well, lord, I have some brothers who will likely end up here (Hades). Can you send somebody back from the dead to tell them. Surely they will listen." "They had Moses and the prophets. That is sufficient. If they end up where you are it's because they don't listen." On the one hand I'd like to call Prof. Chomsky a prophet. On the other hand, this stuff should be taught in middle school. Basics, basics, basics. Noam Chomsky isn't a genius, humanity is utterly foolish. Okay, he is bloody brilliant, but still!
Too bad Noam Chomsky is very old. Not that it's bad to be old person, but because it means he can not be with us but so much longer. There are not very many brilliant but dissident minds in the world.
jesus christ. he'd be so godlike if he wasn't so genuine and humble. he's a living saint. sorry for all the religious language, but i just can't help but think that noam chomsky has it right, through and through. thanks so much for uploading this
Self destruct. Unless the species leaves the cradle they’re chained to.
18,700 people were interested in this video
Millions more would be interested if they had even heard of it.
What is religious language? =P I think you are right. He is a godlike saint in terms of knowledge and intellectual honesty. If intellectual honesty can be a religion - why not? - then surely he is. If intellectual honesty is commitment to truthfinding, then it is my religion too.
I agree with you. However, be aware when you speak of poles shift. It was intensively researched and it seems like it would not be a problem for mankind.
Noan Chomsky would have been a great Preident of U.S.A.
5 months before 9/11. WOW.
don't blow up the weed ..smock it then you wont need a bomb just a bong
we should do what Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. or I should say Rosa Parks did say not today I'm not going to the back of the bus!!!
Very interesting Noam. I did enjoy the talk. But can you remind us again what your views are on whether or not Milosevic committed genocide during the break-up of Yugoslavia?
I agree with so much of what Chomsky says except that I would argue that the Soviet Union and others like it were not capitalist but autocratic socialist systems that violated the values of democratic communism (ie industrial socialism won out over libertarian communism). Socialism in my definition merely means the government ownership of production but that is not synonymous with people's ownership, although you can argue it is pretty hard to protect people power without it. In the long run, neither orthodox forms of socialism and capitalism can sustain what Michael Parentti calls 'democracy of substance'
Nevin Blumer FYI, government ownership of production is called "state capitalism", e.g., the former Soviet Union. They were as socialist as the DPRK is democratic.
Pacopepe711
That is not a 'fact' but a preferred interpretation by some. To me, state capitalism is an oxymoron, since capitalism by nature is the private ownership of capital. I know its used often by anarchists to distinguish autocratic socialism from democratic socialism but to me it evades the reality that socialism can be autocratic and often is just as capitalism usually is.
+Deganawidah Ayenwatha Socialism is the opposite of autocracy and Capitalism is the opposite of the state controlling everything. Granted the definition of socialism, state-capitalism is different than capitalism, it's not a contradiction. State-capitalism means private ownership of the means of production with a state that intervenes in the economy for social purposes, to save it from crashes, to stimulate the economy and so on. A true capitalist, free market society is basically totalitarian and could never be implemented, it would self-destruct.
Chomsky made these arguments and you can see them here on youtube if you want a broader explanation.
+Ricardo Ruiz
Yes, I do agree economic and political systems are largely amalgamations - not just affiliations. Economic institutions are endogenous within a political system and reflect a continuous conflict of interests among various groups and individuals over the choice of economic institutions and the distribution of resources. I also agree with you that capitalism is not so much a system borne out of a laissez faire philosphy of Smith, Ricardo etc.., but more framed by the allocation of political power among elite groups, which long predated capitalism. Now capitalism and plutocracy are like out of control symbiotic viruses, both producing exclusionary institutions that pervade society. I do believe that were it not for a historical lack of participatory democracy in the industrialized world, capitalism would have disappeared. No argument there with you or Chomsky.
I might be guilty of being overly obsessed with semantics, but I just see little value in the term 'state capitalism' instead of 'autocratic socialism' because by convention we distinguish economic systems not just by how resources are allocated, or how economic activity is directed, but also by WHO owns the factors of production. A State capitalist is who then? - the bureaucrat who controls but doesn't own, or the state that owns but doesn't control? State ownership and corporate ownership are very different in nature, even though I agree the outcomes for the less powerful are much the same.
I am also wary of giving any economic system a democratic acclamation , given the propensity of every state, past and current, towards coercion and/or manipulation, despite aspirations to the contrary
Deganawidah Ayenwatha There is a little bit of confusion in your understanding of these terms. First of all, there can't be an autocratic socialist society any more than there can be a totalitarian democratic one. Those two have opposite meanings. Now, the comparison between that and state capitalism is also different than what you perceive it is. A state-capitalist society is neither controlled nor owned by the state. Just look at virtually the entire world and you'll see it. It has private ownership of production with massive state protection for the rich. Now, it isn't in the same level of state-capitalism of the USSR as that was a totalitarian society, we are a more or less democratic society, but even so today the state continues to play a major role in the economy as it has always done in the past. That includes huge protective barriers, protectionism, tax incentives, massive subsidies, bailouts that amount to 100% of the profit of the major financial institutions today and so on. Free market capitalism has been tried in the past and the powerful quickly called it off. The rich would never survive in a capitalist society without any statw protection and they know it.
Chomsky basically makes up these numbers, he says tens of thousands, millions? Wtf is that meen? He's not always wrong but all his numbers are just craaaaazzzy and have no basis in fact. I'd ask u to check them
i REALLY MEANT IT MILLION YEARS A THOUSAND LIFE TIMES proof me wrong
WHY DID YOU DELETE THE GOOD ONE? WHAT THE FUCK
What good is globalisation, if the people who actually work are more economically divided? Unequal treatment and suppressive laws (in the name of "global competition")account for the rest of their misery? Oh wait, the "Administrative" and "accounting branch" profit off it. 2 plus 2 equals still 4, but to some it is just "not enough", to others it is "too much".
great info, filled up some holes i had - now im fucking sure we are doomed :)
speaking b4 911 my drilla
A Family Guy episode brought me here!
Lol which one?
this is craaaazy.... we are definitely fucked by now.
1:08:05 Dang Canada being protectionist for once? Based
1:08:45 lmao
lolololololl. you're a genius. and why don't you tell us what you've done in your last vacations.
Care to enlighten us?
I get fantastic medical care, because I'm rich and medical care is rationed by wealth. If you're rich, the system is working just right. The insurance companies, the health maintenance organizations, the pharmaceutical corporations are doing just great. Wealthy people are doing fine. If most of the population can't get decent medical care, that's not our problem. If health care costs are astronomical, too bad.
NOAM CHOMSKY
his name is not jesus christ, though, but Noam Chomsky.
Do i detect jealousy? I'm sure you'll be as sharp when you reach 2nd grade >D
128:47
That was rough to listen to.
Why do the people allow governments to do the things they do why are these leaders not held accountable to the people and why are the not jailed
Here is a far better question:
Why do some people listen to Linguistics Professors who lack the guts to actually get involved in actual Policy-Making themselves, but merely criticize everyone ELSE from the sidelines, and with the great luxury of exploiting 20/20 Hindsight? smh
@@mck1972 - because someone like this man has to keep watch and point out all the "unimportant" little things that the daily grind deliberately blinds us 'bottom feeders' to....
Otherwise, we would never become aware of the egregious "quiet crimes" being committed against society in general.....
@@billkattkatt1693 ,
So then pls show me any example where information that Chomsky, ' uncovered ', has ever been accepted as evidence of an actual, ' crime ', in any legal proceeding?
@@mck1972 - there has not been any to my admittedly limited knowledge, save what Mr. Chomsky mentioned.
I believe the reason(s) for that is evident if one cares to take a hard look at the 'Justice system' which he mentioned.
There is no way the crimes, the REAL crimes, committed by our govt will EVER be punished because they run the courts, they appoint the judges, they dole out millions in 'foreign aid' ....our tax dollars by the way...so therefore they buy silence and ensure the 'correct' outcomes.
Hence, the wrongs committed in Chile, Nicaragua, Panama, Cuba, Columbia, Guatemala, Ecuador, Haiti, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and places many Americans have never heard of, will NEVER see the light of day much more punished...
Another side of the issue if I may. How often have you seen this man on CNN or Fox, or ABC, NBC, CBC etc etc? Have you come across his views anywhere in the mainstream? Have you ever wondered why this is?
What do you think would happen if the mainstream bought & paid for media published a fraction of what this man is attempting to reveal to the sheeple of this country?
Frankly, I am surprised he is still alive....these sociopaths, the real spectacular murderers, destroyed Gary Webb for exposing the CIA involvement in the importation of tons of cocaine into the US.
Not even a whisper from John Q. Sheeple....they all bought the story that a depressed journalist shot himself in the head. TWICE!
Why?
They didn't know, but it gets worse....they don't care...not their problem... too busy keeping up with the Kardashians, watching the NFL, working to make ends meet.
Shame!
@@billkattkatt1693
Well some ppl might say that the reason Chomsky is not featured more in the mainstream media, is that he merely indulges in paranoid conspiracy theories, that have little if any basis in fact whatsoever!
Instead, he merely cherry-picks his info, to fit his own preconceived conclusions.
And the WORSE our own government has (supposedly) behaved, then the WORSE it makes Chomsky himself look, for NEVER even trying to seek a policy making position himself, and show he can do better!
So IF the, ' powers that be ', really are out to get Chomsky, then they look amazingly incompetent for allowing him to make it to age 90, no???
Allen Donna Brown Jessica Martin David
Lopez Thomas Johnson William Robinson Mary
1:16:53
Oh baby, combed long hairs. Who're you trying to impress old guy, my "asstablishment"!
1 hour in and im not really getting what his message is here, just seems like a shambles jumping from topic to topic. He has jumped from South America, to nukes, to economics just rattling off trivia facts. Does he tie this all up to a message at all? I guess what I am asking is WHAT'S YOUR POINT DUDE!!!
The point is that the structure of the institutions ie the social system, is destructive to the point of becoming dangerous. And that it is up to the people to combine into movements that can modify the policies of said institutions, if not modify or completely reorganize the institutions themselves.
Hence the title, Institutions vs. People.
@@infiniteinfiniteinfi Thanks for clarifying.
@@overhang88 No problem :)
oh god i've been listening to chomskey for 2 hours i need to turn this off
rez 1:11
12:35 Gross mischaracterization and outright lie. This incident had absolutely nothing to do with a “yacht” nor any boat belonging to Vanderbilt.
This guy never speaks up, I mean …
He's well-educated in certain areas, but I notice he has a lot to say about his opinions on economics despite his complete lack of knowledge and understanding about econonomics
+iamtheone whoiamlight Studying international relations and political science is frankly 90% about economics. It's what I studied and I can vouch for that. You don't learn micro economic skills like accounting but you probably learn more about macro economy than a business major.
Besides, if you have any argument against any of his statements, by all means, please put it forward. You may be right, who knows.
He not only knows the relations of power in the world, which involve economic and social aspects, he's also constantly citing proeminent and even mainstream economists to back his arguments with evidence, and when he guesses something he says it, straight out. He is a lot more of an intellectual than many others who pretend to be.
He is more knowledgeable about economics than the supply side/shareholder value , profits over America fascist Powell memo 1%er socialism and corporate welfare ideology economic theories that corporations and the megawealthy have taken over Americas, government, buisness schools universities with, and re engineering American society with the a culture of greed that had destroyed our government and democracy. .
to be frank, you don't need to have learnt economics to see its effects all over the world. but you are correct, the way Chomsky usually works, as it seems, is to simply rely on other acknowledged experts, so his "opinion" on economics is not really an opinion, but, if you'd ask him, he would probably cite others who are unquestioned experts in the field.